King Joey's page

monks are intended to be a defensive class, not an offensive one. They've got a LOT of defensive stuff; great saves, lots of AC boosts, immunities/resistances. The idea behind the monk is that he might not do damage as quickly as a full BAB class, but he'll be around longer to DO the damage because he's harder to kill.

But anyway... yeah. It's because they perfect defense over offense, basically.

I would respectfully disagree. I think the 3/4 BAB is appropriate because Monks are a more multi-faceted character type than the straight bruiser/dpr types, but get the full 1/1 BAB with their FoB to reflect that they are more combat focused than rogues or casters. Frankly, the most major drawback I've encountered with my Monks has been their vulnerability in combat.

An interesting conceptualization, but I view the Law and Chaos alignments a bit differently. Law represents rules, imo. Any behaviour that involves following rules is a lawful inclination. Codes of conduct, obedience to civil or religious commandments, respect for authority and those who wield it, etc., are all contrary to the Chaotic alignment. That is not to say that chaotic characters cannot exhibit any of those traits as virtually no one is 100% any particular point on the alignment map (as you allude to with your scaling). Chaos is about the personal freedom resulting from a lack of rules (or at least, a lack of adherence to them). Whether that respect for personal freedom extends to the freedom of others is a function of their Good/Evil quantum. A chaotic evil character would have no compunction about enslaving others for his own gain, while a chaotic good one would obviously feel the call to free them.

The heart/head, rational/emotional connection rings a bit off for me.

And I also feel that the Good/Evil is the first, most basic origin of a character's reaction to a given situation. At a subconcious level they would be repulsed or inspired by a thing, and how we experience that visceral reaction is shaped by our rules/freedom filter.

Just my $.02.

Well, I personally don't think I will be buying any Wotc products again.

Not until they start supporting and publishing AD&D again . . .

<not holding my breath>

The paragraph about Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack is under the Full Attack section, so I believe everything under the Full Attack section (including this paragraph) goes along with making a full attack. If you are going to apply the rules in this paragraph, it is because you are already making a full attack. However, this gives you the option to do something other than attack after the first attack. You can use a move action after the first attack, but it was the first attack because you were in the process for making multiple attacks. Otherwise, there would be no need to designate it as the first attack.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it almost seems like you are seeing the Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack paragraph as its own separate section that can be applied to any form of attack (single attack, full attack, attack of opportunity, etc).

In the example you give, if the player is making a full attack without penalty, then this player is not two-weapon fighting. Because preparing yourself to two-weapon fight means starting out with a penalty on the first attack.

And you are right about the wording not saying that your full attack stops. If says that after the first attack, you can do something else instead of making the rest of your attacks. But is "moving instead of continue attacking" all that different than "stop attacking and start moving"? And even if it is different, I'm not sure how the end result is any different.

Or why you could turn one type of full attack into a different kind of full attack.

You can't. My point is that once you've chosen the Full Attack action, you don't have a move action left to take. The rule for deciding later applies when you take a normal attack -- which would be a Standard Action -- and then have the option of deciding to take a Full Attack action and taking your iterative attacks, or leaving it as a Standard Attack and taking a Move action.

A full attack can be stopped after the first attack, and if you haven't used your move action yet, you can use it now (with the standard limitations, like not being able to move in the same round as a 5-ft step).

Where do you get this? Where does it say a Full Attack action can be declared and then stopped, leaving a Move action available? I'm noting the name of the rule you cited:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

That says nothing about stopping a Full Attack action. It says that you can make an attack -- which is available whether you end up choosing a Standard Attack action or a Full Attack action -- without deciding whether to make a Full Attack action or a Standard Attack action, and then decide whether to choose a Full Attack action to continue attacking or a Standard Attack action which leaves you with no more attacks but a Move action available.

Maybe it was meant to allow the stopping and then starting, but that's not what it says; and if it did say that, then why wouldn't every Two-Weapon Fighting attack go like this:

Player: I'm attacking, full attack bonus, no penalty.
DM: Okay, you hit.
Player: Okay, now I'm choosing to make it a Full Attack using both weapons, so I get a second attack with a penalty for dual-wielding . . . .
?

Rapid shot reads "pg 132-- when making a full attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round.."

Here's the question that makes me wonder, though; when using Flurry of Blows (and, say, shuriken), you are making a full attack action with a ranged weapon in each hand. Would that mean that you could fire each ranged weapon one additional time this round?

Interesting reading, but not quite accurate. WF lets you use one modifier instead of the other on attack rolls with qualifying weapons. It says instead. As said before, CMB checks are attack rolls. You choose one or the other. You don't get both with just finesse.

I didn't mean to suggest one or the other, as I think this is the correct reading. It was the discussion above about WF being a "bonus", and whether the line about adding bonuses that apply to your attack after calculating the CMB would give the double dip. It seemed clear (to me, at least) that substituting the CMB for the normal attack bonus would limit the WF effects to the CMB calculation. But now I know. <G>

Thanks!

@Hex: That doesn't make any sense.

You usually apply STR bonus to attack rolls. WF allows you to apply DEX bonus to attack rolls.
Maneuvers use all your Attack bonuses. With WF, DEX Bonus *IS* an Attack Bonus.
It doesn't matter if it's "additional" or a 'replacement'.

RAW, WF *does* apply to Maneuvers, though I suspect that's not the intent.

The question is, does the character now add his ST modifier in calculating the CMB, AND add his DX modifier through WF?

Level 1 Human Fighter with ST 16/DX 16 and WF uses a shortsword in a disarm attempt; he calculates his CMB (BAB + ST modifier + Size Modifier = 4). Does he than also add his DX Modifier from WF for a total attack bonus of +7, or does the DX Modifier replace the ST modifier in the CMB calculation?

Pirate appears to be mistaken.

Yar!

Sorry, but there is some rule-misunderstanding going on in here.

CRB page 187, Full Attack wrote:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack

After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

That rule applies to when you make the decision between Full Attack and Standard Attack actions, not changing your mind once you make the choice. Two-Weapon Fighting and Flurry of Blows (and Rapid Shot, I think) require a Full Attack action to trigger. Thus in order to gain the effects of one of them (specifically in this case, the BAB effect of Flurry of Blows), you must choose a Full Attack action. Once that choice is made, there is no provision for going back and changing it.

It's like this:

Situation 1 -- A fighter makes an attack without choosing between a Full Attack or Standard Attack action, then sees the result of that attack, and then decides whether to continue as a Full Attack action or to take a Move action.

Situation 2 -- A Monk declares a Flurry of Blows attack, making the choice THEN with that declaration to take a Full Attack action, and thus has no move action remaining regardless of how many attacks he makes.

You can indeed declare a full-attack (a.k.a. a Flurry-of-Blows), make the first attack, and then decide to not continue, but instead move or perform a move-action.

That is simply not what the rule says. Nowhere does it say you can "declare a full-attack" than then change your mind and take a move action. What it says is you can take an attack -- which can be part of a Standard Attack or a Full Attack -- and then choose between Full Attack or Standard Attack based on the result of that attack.

The rule Pirate suggests exists would basically eliminate all Two-Weapon Fighting penalties for the first attack (as well as the penalty for Rapid Shot).

The opposite is not true, which is what has been suggested by others. If what has been said by others here was true, then you could cleave or vital strike on the first attack, then decide to full attack. This is NOT true.

This is the case for precisely the same reason his earlier conclusion is wrong: a Vital Strike or Cleave -- like a Flurry of Blows -- requires a specific type of action be declared to activate it. And once a type of action is declared, there's nothing in the RAW to allow you to go back and change it. There rule he cites above only clarifies that you can also make that declaration after the first attack, though that first attack would not trigger any special effects or feats that require such a declaration (i.e., Cleave, Flurry of Blows, Scorpion Style, etc.).

Do you really need the developers for this? I mean, most of y'all seem to have put way more thought into this than I suspect they ever did, so why would you change whatever solution is working for your game just because some guy on a message board who happens be a developer says it's supposed to be another way? I can understand seeking clarification on a rule that you can't get to work for you, but most of you are describing at great lengths quite reasonable solutions that you are clearly implementing in your games. What more clarification could you possibly need?

Or has the concept of organized gaming or standardized gaming or whatever it's called completely undone the concept of original game mastering? You know, when you are the game master it is -- quite literally -- YOUR WORLD. The trip rules work however YOU decide they should work, no matter what the developers say. Right?

Notice how my bolded portion does not mention that the "character's BAB equals his monk level" (Or conversely "character's BAB equals his character level"). In this case for the case of the monk class the BAB = monk level, and total BAB would be 2 (monk) + 5 (fighter). as he has a BAB of +7, he would have an attack bonus at +5/+5/+0.

Okay, I'll try to explain this another way.

In the phrase "the monk's BAB", "monk's" is a possessive noun. In the phrase "monk levels" or "monk class", monk is an adjective. As a noun, "monk's" can only refer to the character. To refer specifically to the character's levels in the monk class, it would have to be an adjective with an accompanying noun to modify (e.g., "level" or "class").

"The monk's" can only refer to the character, creature or person described, who for whatever reason is being ascribed the characteristic of being a monk (in this case, because the character does indeed have monk class levels).

Again, when Aura of Courage says "a paladin" is immune to fear, it clearly refers to the character; not the paladin class levels.

In the case of a monk2/fighter5, the monk2 and the fighter5 do not have BAB's; the CHARACTER has a BAB. That's why BAB appears on the character sheet with only one entry, separate from the class and level entries. It's not a statistic of the class levels, it's a statistic of the character DERIVED FROM the class levels. And anything that modifies, limits or changes the BAB would apply to the CHARACTER'S BAB unless it specified that it only applied to BAB FROM a specific class. "The monk's BAB" is not "the BAB FROM monk".

King Joey wrote:

In a normal attack, it is the sum of the base attack bonuses bestowed by all class levels the character possesses.

But I thought base attack bonus was only a statistic of a character? Classes are not characters. By your explanation, only characters have BABs, and classes are not involved.

What? What the heck are you talking about? Characters have classes, and based on those classes, the characters have a BAB. A BAB. Not some, not several, but ONE. It is usually derived from adding the base attack bonuses of the class levels held by the character. In some cases, however, specific situations can change that calculation. Like when something inflicts a penalty on a character's BAB, it does not affect each class BAB; it affects the character's one sole statistic of BAB. Or like, for example, a situation where the rules state that only a character's monk levels apply to calculating BAB.

When the rules state that, for the purpose of FOB, "the monk's BAB is equal to their class level", that's exactly what it means. The monk's BAB is equal to the class level. This has no bearing on the fighter's BAB

So you think having two classes makes the character two people? One being "the monk" and the other being "the fighter"? If something reduces "the monk's" hit points to zero, is the fighter still okay? Are there two different saving throw pools, too? I mean, if Still Mind only affects "the monk's" saving throws, does "the fighter" still have to make a save without the bonus?

The formula for BAB is [BAB from Class 1] + [BAB from Class 2] + [BAB from Class 3] ... = [Character's BAB]. The Flurry of Blows text only affects [BAB from Monk].

Except that it completely does not say that. As you just pointed out, the BAB from his Monk class is "BAB from Monk"; not "the Monk's BAB."

If it had meant that, it would say "the character's BAB is equal to their class level".

The paladin ability Aura of Courage says, "At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to fear. . . ." Do you think that means only the character's paladin levels are immune to fear? Or is it using the term "a paladin" to refer to a CHARACTER with paladin class levels?

That is exactly what it the wording in FOB does. I specifically uses the possessive term "the monk's", which means belonging to a person who is a monk. The character with monk class levels is the person who is a monk.

Let me ask you this: if a trap description said that anyone attempting to disable the trap would have to make a save or else the trap would "drain one of the rogue's levels", would you think that the trap would only affect characters with rogue levels? Or would it apply to any character attempting to disarm it, because "the rogue" was meant to identify the character rather than specify a particular class? And would you find any difference in meaning between that and it saying that it would "drain one rogue level" from the disarming character?

King Joey wrote:

Base attack bonus is a statistic of a character.

It is? Really? What's the base attack bonus of a 9th level character?

It is whatever the situational rules define it to be. In a normal attack, it is the sum of the base attack bonuses bestowed by all class levels the character possesses. In other situations, it is defined differently. In the RAW, when using Flurry of Blows, the character's Base Attack Bonus would be equal to the number of levels in the Monk class the character possesses.

The point, however, is that a character only has one "base attack bonus" statistic for any given situation. As evidenced by the character sheet, which does not list a "base attack bonus" entry next to each class of the character, but rather has one entry on the entire sheet for the character's "Base Attack Bonus". Like all other entries, that value can change due to circumstances (e.g., using Flurry of Blows).

I'm sorry, I did not mean that.

My suggestion was to use DEX instead of STR in this ^ calculation.

But in the light of Baumbach's post I'm now more inclined to think that what I suggested as a houserule maybe is what is implied by RAW.

Gotcha. All copacetic.<G>

Louis IX wrote:

Magicdealer wrote:

The "character with levels in monk"'s base attack bonus is equal to his monk level.

That's RAI.

No, that is actually RAW. The English language has specific rules about the meaning of punctuation and grammar. And the punctuation and grammar of the RAW for that ability definitely state that the BAB from other classes do not add in. Apparently that was not what the developers intended, but it is certainly what they wrote.

Quote:

If what you wrote was correct, a monk1/fighter19 would flurry at -1/-1. Despite their years of training at attacking and such. Not only would it be unlogical, but it would also be unfair to the monk.

Not really, since there would be no reason for him to have to use FOB. That's like saying it would be unfair to a rogue1/fighter19 to not allow his fighter levels to come into play for sneak attack damage. The sneak attack is a completely different aspect of combat that does not apply any of his previously learned fighter skills. FOB is the same way. FOB is a specific Monk ability that utilizes combat techniques that are totally different from the ones used by fighters (or any other class), and it would make perfect sense (and, imo, not terribly skew game balance) for other class levels to not apply when the monk is using this specific Monk-only ability. Again, it can't be deemed unfair to him because he is not forced to use it. In the Monk1/Fighter19 example you used, he would have his choice of the -1/-1 FOB attacks, or the +19/+14/+9/+4 normal attacks. Granted that's not much of a choice, but what level 19 fighter would realistically take a Monk level for the FOB ability when he could simply take the TWF feat at level 20?

Quote:

There are class abilities which rely only on class levels, others rely on character level. The additional attacks from Flurry of Blows rely on the class level, and the BAB is the sum of BAB from all classes.

That is a very reasonable rule, and apparently the one intended by the devs. However it does not change the fact that the rule as written simply does not work that way. Base attack bonus is a statistic of a character. And "the monk's base attack bonus" specifies that statistic. Thus, the statistic for that...

Magicdealer wrote:

The "character with levels in monk"'s base attack bonus is equal to his monk level.

That's RAI.

No, that is actually RAW. The English language has specific rules about the meaning of punctuation and grammar. And the punctuation and grammar of the RAW for that ability definitely state that the BAB from other classes do not add in. Apparently that was not what the developers intended, but it is certainly what they wrote.

If what you wrote was correct, a monk1/fighter19 would flurry at -1/-1. Despite their years of training at attacking and such. Not only would it be unlogical, but it would also be unfair to the monk.

Not really, since there would be no reason for him to have to use FOB. That's like saying it would be unfair to a rogue1/fighter19 to not allow his fighter levels to come into play for sneak attack damage. FOB is a specific Monk ability, and it would make perfect sense (and, imo, not terribly skew game balance) for other class levels to not apply when the monk is using this specific Monk-only ability. Again, it can't be deemed unfair to him because he is not forced to use it. In the Monk1/Fighter19 example you used, he would have his choice of the -1/-1 FOB attacks, or the +19/+14/+9/+4 normal attacks. Granted that's not much of a choice, but what level 19 fighter would realistically take a Monk level for the FOB ability when he could simply take the TWF feat at level 20?

There are class abilities which rely only on class levels, others rely on character level. The additional attacks from Flurry of Blows rely on the class level, and the BAB is the sum of BAB from all classes.

That is a very reasonable rule, and apparently the one intended by the devs. However it does not change the fact that the rule as written simply does not work that way. Base attack bonus is a statistic of a character. And "the monk's base attack bonus" specifies that statistic. Thus, the statistic for that character in the situation specified is as defined in that line; in this case, "his monk level."

Moreover, it has already been discussed...

As I've said, the developers clearly intended it to work one way, and inadvertently wrote it a slightly different way. It's not a big deal, but it should be noted for consistency's sake to avoid future confusion by similar wordings (or miswordings).

The whole purpose of tumble is TO avoid an AoO.

But the tactical movement rules (p. 193) specifically state:

Tumbling: A trained character can attempt to use Acrobatics to move through a square occupied by an opponent (see the Acrobatics skill).

That doesn't say anything about avoiding an AoO. So I'm just wondering if there is intended to be a separate game mechanic for using the Acrobatics skill to simply move through an opponent's square when you don't care about the AoO.

Or, were they talking about the typical tumbling maneuver to avoid the AoO and the ability to use it to go through an opponent's square (at an additional 5 DC)?

The CMB when making a ranged trip with a bolas should be base attack + Dex mod + special size modifier (the CMB size modifier). The special attack (trip) is replacing the normal attack, meaning that instead of rolling and adding your attack bonus, you roll and add your CMB (and then damage is replaced by the prone condition). The reason DEX replaces STR in the equation is because this is a ranged trip attempt, and ranged attacks use Dex as the ability modifier.

But CMB is calculated separately and does not include Dex. The dex bonus would apply as a bonus to the attack of the underlying weapon used to make the Maneuver attempt, but it still would not (under RAW) be a part of the CMB. Your adjustment makes perfect sense, but I just wanted to clarify whether you meant it as a house rule or if you were suggesting that was the way it worked under RAW.

King Joey wrote:

Hmm, does that mean it provokes an Attack of Opportunity? <g>

As loopy notes, ranged attacks provoke AoOs anyway, so yeah it would. But that would be a hard question (that I don't have the answer to) if you had a feat or something that lets you make ranged attacks without provoking AoOs (I'd lean toward no AoO in that case, but I'm no sage).

Like I said above, I was talking about provoking an AoO as a trip attempt against the target. I assume however that throwing bolas at a guy holding a longsword 50 feet away would not give him an Attack of Opportunity against the thrower.

King Joey wrote:

Tom Baumbach wrote:

It's just CMB, as the trip attempt replaces the attack.

Hmm, does that mean it provokes an Attack of Opportunity? <g>

Ranged attacks do anyways.

From the target (if they are beyond missile range)? I know the normal rules for attacks of opportunity by ranged attacks but the trip attempt normally triggers an AoO from the target. I assumed that it would not be the case if they were not within reach, so I was kind of joking about it.

King Joey wrote:

nidho wrote:

Though you may want to talk your DM into allowing you to use DEX instead of STR to calculate CMB, as if using agile maneuvers.

Since it's a ranged attack... sort of makes sense.

So that would be counting the dex bonus twice (once in the CMB and once again as an attack bonus for a thrown weapon, which is added to the maneuver attempt with that weapon)?

I still can't figure why dex isn't already included in CMB as well as CMD.

O_o Dex bonus twice? As you say CMB does not take DEX into account.

Right, but you were suggesting that the DM allow you to use Dex instead of Str in the CMB (which would be different from the normal calculation which doesn't include it). I was clarifying that by doing so you intended to include the Dex bonus twice; once in the CMB (under the DM's special allowance) and once as a thrown weapon attack bonus.

Well of course they say the "monk's base attack" rather than monk base attack. The character is a monk. What else would they call him? "Adventurer?"

Exactly. So the character's (monk's/adventurer's/etc.) base attack bonus when using flurry of blows would be equal to his monk level, period. Adding the BAB of other classes is not part of the description (though it was apparently intended).

None of the classes assume multiclassing within their text. The way the monk class reads isn't going to be any different.

No, but many of them have class abilities that disregard levels in other classes (rogue sneak attack ability, for one). Also, some have class abilities that expressly allow the adding of benefits from other classes. This includes the Monk's Maneuver Training, which specifically states that he substitutes his monk level for his base attack bonus, and that base attack bonuses from other levels are added normally. As written, the absence of that language from the Flurry of Blows description should indicate that the BAB from other classes is not included.

It's just CMB, as the trip attempt replaces the attack.

Hmm, does that mean it provokes an Attack of Opportunity? <g>

Though you may want to talk your DM into allowing you to use DEX instead of STR to calculate CMB, as if using agile maneuvers.

Since it's a ranged attack... sort of makes sense.

So that would be counting the dex bonus twice (once in the CMB and once again as an attack bonus for a thrown weapon, which is added to the maneuver attempt with that weapon)?

I still can't figure why dex isn't already included in CMB as well as CMD.

King Joey wrote:

So is there any way to use acrobatics to move through an opponent's square without avoiding the attack of opportunity?

Aye

Okay, so what is the mechanic for doing this? Would it require the same contest of acrobatics versus CMD +5? That wouldn't make any sense as it should be harder to slip through AND avoid the AoO than it is to simply slip through.

Luckily, you are flat out wrong.

Notice your own highlighted text says "the monk's base attack?" Only the monk base attack bonus is equal to the monk's level when flurrying. The fighter base attack bonus is wholly unaffected by those rules and applies to the total bonus normally.

The italicized portions of your post are different, and that difference has meaning. A "boy scout's shirt" is any shirt belonging to the boy scout to which you are referring. A "boy scout shirt" is a shirt specifically designed and attributed to the boy scouts.

The "monk's base attack" is the base attack possessed by that monk. The "monk base attack" is the base attack attributed to being a monk.

However, while true, this distinction is apparently not controlling. Paizo has (according to the thread linked above) clarified their intent to be that any and all attack bonuses be included in flurry of blows, despite the actual wording of the ability description.

But tumbling is not dodging. To use the power of your arm and axe, you have to aim first, because the more power you put in your swing, the harder it is to correct the trajectory. Speed and power is one thing (it's strength), accuracy is another (and I'd say it's dexterity).

If the abstraction is that they tried an attack but failed, the AoO when acrobatics fail should be an automatic hit. It's the contrary : if they tried an attack before succeeding in being ahead of the tumbler's move, it is an automatic failure.

I guess the illustration would be like this: on one side you have a 4'2" 90 pound guy who's 85 years old with a 40 pound sledgehammer, and on the other side you have a 6'6" 280# guy who's 24 years old with the same skill as the older guy with an identical 40 pound sledge; the only difference is their strenght, but wouldn't you think it would be easier to get by one before they can get a swing off on you than the other?

And again, this situation IN NO WAY limits the utility of tumbling; against any but a handful of CR 9 creatures the rogue is going to be virtually immune to AoO; THAT is a VERY POWERFUL ability. If it were designed to make the acrobat universally immune to AoO, it would be extremely unbalancing. There are only two creatures with CMDs of 40+ at CR 9. Two. Do you really find it unbalancing that there are two creatures of an appropriate level that are a threat to AoO the rogue?

I agree with Xum.

Furthermore the issue that you bring up, the issue of adding strength to the CMD, has as much to do with the reason that the CMD was created = a fast and efficient way to resolve the check and not *have* to sit there and calculate bonuses. I mean you could extrapolate it out but at that point don't use the CMD/CMB system...

That's another good point. The rogue may want to tweak the system in this case, but when his dex and BAB mods are suddenly taken out of his CMD when someone with a grapple on him starts doing damage because, "it's just question of strength!," he won't be too pleased.

It's imperfect, but not a huge problem imho.

And you're right. Items that aren't listed under armor have 0 impact. According to the pathfinder book, armor can be donned and removed. However, fullplate isn't made up of a breastplate with extra pieces tacked on for better coverage. Helms, leggings, gloves, boots provide no extra protection.

You're attempting to force qualities of real-world versions of these armors onto the armor tables, but that's not how the armor system is designed to work. It's designed to be more abstract, and easier to use, so that you don't have to calculate how much ac bonus you get after donning your fullplate for 31 rounds. You also don't have to worry about which pieces get dented, whether or not the straps start to fray, or how hard it is to stand up after getting knocked over.

Instead, you can walk all day long in fullplate, get knocked down and bound back up in less than six seconds, and wield a scythe that releases flames and acid when you hit someone just right.

While we would all like to be able to make things match up evenly and accurately, it seriously over-complicates the rules. You can houserule everything you want in your game, but it IS a house rule, and not the way the game mechanics function.

I guess you can call it "houseruling", but insisting that a shotgun is not a weapon simply because there's not weapon listing for it is not a question of "over-complicating" rules. Twisting simple basic reality into contortions of rules-lawyering (like, for example, Monks can use armor just so long as the specific piece isn't listed as armor on the armor chart) is much more complicating. I've played in games where reality was completely ignored in favor of any possible technical interpretation of the rules, which would result in wagons being drawn from backpacks (when there's no specific limit listed for a backpack's capacity) and a single character carrying dozens of suits of plate mail armor (when weight is the only factor in the game's encumbrance mechanics). Those games all sucked because they assume a complete erasure of reality and only the rules listed in the rulebooks exist. The fact that there is nothing specifically stated in the rules saying that two objects cannot normally occupy the same space does not mean that rule of physics is simply ignored.

In any successful game, the fundamental rules of reality have to be assumed to exist except where the game deigns otherwise (e.g., firebreathing dragons, magical teleportation, superhuman feats of strength and skill, etc.). No game can give actual game mechanics for all of them so they cover the most common and most applicable ones, and leave the rest to common sense and roleplay. That's why broadswords are still weapons and non-magical wagons can't be carried in non-magical backpacks, even though neither are specifically stated in the rules.

Again, anyone is free to house rule any way they like; but I would consider any game where there are no rules of the universe other than the text of the rulebook definitely to be house rules in a major and unfortunate way.

Including Str Bonus in CMD makes sense in many cases, but it's not very logical in this case, the DM just needs to make a call.

Don't forget the most important rule :)

Yeah, I should mention that I probably wouldn't go with the RAW in this case, either. I'm just pointing out how the RAW can make sense.

I'm not sure exactly how I'd fix it, but it would probably involve a combination of the rogue's CMB and Acrobatics. Although it would be dicey; anything giving the rogue a reasonable chance against the second most powerful anti-Combat Maneuver creature at that CR would make the rogue essentially unhittable by normal foes. And I do not read the acrobatics rules as intending to make AoO and all related feats essentially obsolete.

I feel that the opportunity to make the attack should not be influenced by STR, but instead by Dex.

I see your point. But the way I look at it, the ability to attempt an attack of opportunity is a reflection of one's competence with that melee attack. Strength enhances that competence, as expressed through the bonus on to hit rolls. That enhancement reflects the ability to more comfortably control the weapon in your grip, the ability to swing it more rapidly (thus making it more likely for the target to still be where you are swinging), the ability to adjust swings and maneuvers in progress through sheer force (think of a sword swing that misses but the guy is strong enough to reverse stroke immediately before the target can adjust; that's not hard to envision is the course of a six-second round of fighting), and other related factors. Those factors would also come into play when determining whether someone is able to avoid your attack of opportunity. Just like acrobatics cannot automatically negate a strength bonus on regular attacks, it is not necessarily able to negate the impact of strength on an opponent's ability to attempt an attack of opportunity.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

As for the difficulty, I noticed that the Greater Water Elemental has the second highest CMD of any CR9 creature (second only to the Greater Fire Elemental) and (by my count) some 5 points higher than the normal calculation. That would strongly suggest to me that this particular creature is particularly adept at countering combat maneuvers of all types. So I don't really see it as a problem that there is some creature out there at the appropriate CR that can counter this rogue's acrobatic talents in this one particular manner, even though they are maxed out. To me, it would be comparable to creature with a spell resistance high enough that spells from equivalent level casters would be nearly useless; some creatures just demand an alternate approach.

Also, since it has both the Lightning Reflexes and Dodge feats, plus a dex of 20, I don't think "lumbering" is a very apt descriptor.

On a not-quite-related note, I still don't get why Dex is not a part of CMB, though.

That's not the situation I brought up originally.

Then I apologize; I completely misread your post.

However, I think the rational can still be applicable (though certainly less so). The stronger an opponent is, the more freely and quickly they can swing their weapon (or other attack). Thus, they can effectively strike at a higher proportion of the threatened square making it more difficult for an acrobat to tumble precisely through the areas of the 5'x5' square where the opponent cannot physically bring the attack to bear (which is what it means to avoid the Attack of Opportunity).

Basically, I think the idea is that strength makes you better in combat; that's why it gives a bonus to hit as well as damage. Obviously, skill, dexterity, size and other features are also going to factor in, but I think strength is a reasonable factor as well.

I wouldn't allow it. Initiative is there for a reason. You can only ready an action on someone if you get a jump on people.

So you either surprise someone (and get a surprise round) or you win initiative. Otherwise, you're out of luck.

Always remember that this could be used against you.

Okay, so picture this: your players are facing off against a bunch of orcs, one of whom has drawn, loaded and cocked a crossbow and is pointing it at the wizard. The players say they are not going to do anything, just wait to see what the orcs do. The orc with the crossbow fires at the wizard. So you declare that everyone rolls initiative, and the wizard beats the crossbow orc. Are you then going to allow him to go back in time and take an action based on what he now knows the orc is going to do but has not done yet after having stated that he was going to wait and see what happens, or are you going to treat his declaration that he would wait and see what happens as a delay action for his first round of combat?

Nope, because even if it's drawn and ready, it doesn't mean the person holding it is aware, focused, and what not. Also, if you're pointed it at me, I may be "fast enough" to react before you can shoot.

React to what? Even if you have the higher initiative, you have chosen to take no action this "round" (a delay action), so when my turn comes and I choose to shoot you (or Ready an action to shoot you), then my action comes ahead of your action in the initiative. And we know that you have chosen to take no action because you have said that you are just standing there (in the scenario described). Now, there's not likely to be many situations where someone is going to be pointed a loaded, cocked crossbow at you and you won't be at least readying an action (like, say, get the hell out of the way). But as described, that was the scenario. The initiative is irrelevant because unless you've already stated an intent to take some action (including potentially a ready action), your action would be to delay.

But maybe that's just me. I'm not big on preternatural "spider sense" rolls for people to react to actions that have not been taken yet. To me, that would be akin to giving you attacks of opportunity based on move actions that haven't even taken place yet.

And the old west standoff situation is different where everyone has to draw. The analog to this would be for you to wait until the other guy starts to draw before deciding to draw yourself, and yet somehow you start your draw action before he does. It's totally up to the DM, but it's a little cinematic for my tastes.

What class is a Monk 2/Fighter 5?

He is multiclass. He has a character level of 7, a class level of 5 in Fighter, and a class level of 2 in Monk.

Or in other words, would you not have (Monk's Base Attack Bonus = Monk's Level) + Fighter Base Attack Bonus = Flurry of Blow's Bab for a MonkX/FighterY?

Not when using Flurry of Blows (at least according to RAW). The Monk special ability Flurry of Blows specifically states that when making attacks using that ability the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his class level in monk. It does NOT say that the character's base attack bonus from his monk class is equal to his class level in monk, which is the way your formula seems to calculate it.

For the record, I think that the RAW on this is a tab harsh, but my campaigns (as a player or DM) rarely involve much multiclassing so it hasn't been much of a problem.

i don't understand the question. a level 6 monk gets 3 attacks when flurrying because the chart says that's how many he gets. that's how flurrying works.

The ability description specifically states that at 6th level flurry of blows gives the monk exactly ONE additional attack. By RAW, that can only mean that the 6th level monk has two normal attacks (one full, one iterative) based on his adjusted BAB (6) when flurrying, plus the ONE additional attack from the flurry ability.

Now, as was also referenced above, the description does state that the monk's BAB is equal to his monk level. So it would seem that the monk in question in the OP would be treated as having a BAB 2, and thus only the two +0/+0 attacks when flurrying. But when his monk level reaches the appropriate level (i.e., 6th, 11th & 16th), his flurry ability clearly triggers iterative attacks appropriate to his adjusted BAB when using flurry.

Azhagal wrote:

you would still only get the two attacks for the flurry but instead of it being +0/+0 it'd change to +5/+5 so, even though though you'd normally be getting an extr attack it doesn't count toward flurrying

this is actually correct. i'll see if i can find it, as i believe it is official. flurry is not TWF, just like it, and can not be used with it, or in combination with normal iterative attacks.

Really? That doesn't seem right. How would a 6th level monk have 3 attacks (+4/+4/-1) when flurrying, then? He only gets one full bonus attack (minus the two weapon penalty of -2) which is the first +4, and one additional attack at full bonus for the flurry (minus the two weapon penalty of -2) which is the second +4; wouldn't the third attack at -1 be the iterative attack: 6(BAB)-2(two weapon penalty)-5(iterative second attack)?

There is a reason why Offensive Linemen are big guys...

And Defensive Linemen aren't hobbits . . .

But we're talking about Acrobatics/Tumbling here. The point

is to avoid him/her, completely!

And that is MUCH harder than simply getting past someone without them getting a chance to get a swing in on you.

Consider this: to avoid the attack of opportunity would mean that at no time in the movement are you within the swingable motion of the weapon. Now, if someone is strong enough to swing their weapon quickly in any direction, the area you must avoid to deny them even the possiblity of attacking you is much greater. If someone lacks the strength the get a meaningful blow all the way around quickly enough, then it is easier to find a gap where they can't swing at you.

Slip past his/her grip.

Again, if you are talking about getting past the person rather than avoiding the attack of opportunity, then slipping past their grip requires FAR more acrobatic movements than simply moving in such a way that they cannot get a solid grip on you. The less grip they need to stop you, the more completely you need to avoid their grip altogether.

Or would you consider (reversing the situation) a hobbit almost certain to stop the giant because the giant can't avoid his grip?

Use the Rogue's Dex as a counter to the Giant's Str.

That's exactly what it is doing; which is why the giant's str is a factor that has to be countered. Otherwise the hobbit would be trying to counter the giant's str with his own str; hardly a favorable proposition.

After all, when was the last time a body-builder caught a fly in mid-air?

When was the last time you saw Mary Lou Retton get through a doorway Andre the Giant was trying to block?

We are talking about **threatened** squares. The Att. of Opp. is

invoked whenever you leave any threatened square.

Ah, so you are objecting to the general rule of the attacks of opportunity. My bad. I thought you were objecting to the ability of the opponent to stop you from getting through the square.

In terms of the AoO, the Str would factor into their ability to launch that attack in the same sense that it would add to their ability to hit with it.

If that weren't the case, wouldn't a simple acrobatics check be sufficient to nullify any attempt at attacking?

A very fast dexterous Corner-back can totally avoid the big Offensive

Tackle by running around him, or executing a swim move, or a spin move.
He at least has a chance of avoiding the Tackle's strength.

Yes, but (speaking from direct experience) that is easier to do against a weaker tackle than it is against a stronger tackle. Against a weaker tackle, if you slip by him and he just gets a hand slap on your shoulder, your progress is essentially unimpeded. If you have the same result against a stronger tackle, his hand slap on your shoulder will more significantly imped your progress, potentially stopping you altogether (if he's strong enough). When you're talking about superhuman beings (like greater water elementals and giants) instead of people, then a mere finger might be enough to stop a tumbling hobbit.

A spry, nimble, hobbit is fighting against a huge lumbering Giant..

In the story the hobbit jumps nimbly through the Giant's legs,
narrowly avoiding his huge (strong?) hands.

How would you simulate this if the hobbit needed an Acrobatics of >30 to
have a chance to tumble past a CMD 40+ creature?

Wouldn't the Giant be 3 sizes larger, enabling the hobbit to move through the space unhindered (unless you are complaining about the general proposition of attacks of opportunity)?

Why should my opponent's STR apply to

my evading him, if he can't even lay a hand on me?

Because evasion is not simply an all or nothing proposition. Evading someone's attempt to stop you does not mean they did not even lay a hand on you. If you are familiar with American football, you could think of an armtackling situation: it's easier to avoid a slightly quicker but much smaller guy because all you have to do is keep him from getting a solid hit on you with his weight and momentum behind it; but a much bigger and slightly slower guy is a tougher proposition because then you must actually keep him from even laying a hand on you.

And being bigger and less dextrous does not necessarily mean that they are immobile statues. As was pointed out earlier, the water elemental in question has combat levels and the ability to maneuver. That it also has a significant strength advantage just makes its maneuvers more difficult to overcome.

In a recent game our Rogue (level 9) attempted to tumble past a Greater Water elemental (CMD 40) and failed. After the session he looked up his opponents CMD and realized that he would have had to roll a natural 20 just to make the check (Acrobatics Skill bonus was 21).

He and I are little bit confused as to why it's easier to tumble past a smaller, dexterous opponent vs. a huge, lumbering elemental.

Why is Str including in the CMD against tumbling at all? Attacks rolls, grappling and overrun I can understand… but why tumbling?
Has anyone else run into this problem?

Without referring to the description of the elemental I would guess that a CMD of 40 would suggest that it may not be all that "lumbering", or that maybe it is just that big and strong. And tumbling past a smaller opponent can be easier simply by virtue of being able to jump over them. Strength is quite easily applicable to a check against tumbling because it would influence how cleanly you must evade their attempts to lay hands on you. A tiny rogue with a Str of 7 might be able to get both arms around you but not be strong enough to keep you from slipping through anyway; whereas a hulking barbarian with a Str of 22 might only get a partial grip with a single hand on you but have the sheer power to stop you in your tracks with just that.

That being said, I've always found it curious that both dex and str count for CMD, but only str counts for CMB (absent special feat/abilities).

The rules don't seem to be clear if you can. For example, if I have a crossbow pointed at somebody and ready an action to shoot if he draws a weapon, is that allowable?

It seems to me that you are initiating combat with your "ready action." You are saying that you already have the crossbow out and aimed at him. If he isn't attacking you, then once you decide to attack him with it (even conditionally) that would (imo) begin combat with your ready action. And the "combat" status would continue round by round until action started and all the fighting was resolved, or until the encounter ended without him ever drawing a weapon (and thus you never shooting).

Remember, just because I say "I punch him" before initiatives are rolled doesn't mean I get to attack him first if he's going to fight back.

Even if he's not going to try and fight back until after you try and punch him? If we're dealing with a "standoff" kind of situation, where neither side is attempting any combat actions, then the first one to attempt a combat action (including a "Ready Action") would be the first to have their action resolved because all "earlier" actors in that round have taken the delay action by not attempting any action.

Of course, if the other side is also standing their saying, "I'm gonna pop him if he tries to take a swing at me," then you're back to normal initiative situations.

If we're dealing with a situation where there is no confrontation/combat issue until some action occurs (like the guy with the crossbow knows that he and his buddies have set up the opponents for a double cross, so there are about to be blows exchanged that the other guys do not know are coming), then there would be surprise issues. If the non-confrontational situation allows the crossbow to be drawn, cocked and aimed without arising suspicion (sense motive and/or perception checks would seem in order here), then the ready action should certainly be allowed and the resulting conditional attack would occur immediately before the action of the guy drawing the weapon.

Remco Sommeling wrote:

I think you have to use tumbling to get through an opponents square, even if it can't or won't make an AoO.

This is correct (unless the opponent is 3 size categories different).

But isn't that exactly what overrun does, move you through the opponents square?

The question I have is this: the tactical movement rules say that you can use tumbling to move through an opponent's square and make reference to the acrobatics skill description. In the acrobatics skill description, there is no discussion of simply moving through an opponents square; it only describes how to use acrobatics to move through an opponents square AND avoid the attack of opportunity that would provide. So is there any way to use acrobatics to move through an opponent's square without avoiding the attack of opportunity?

It is included in the package deal when you purchase some types of armor. So is the under-padding for the armor. But that padding doesn't provide an armor bonus, and is not armor.

Okay, question: a monk has a suit of full-plate armor. He is awakened in the night and begins donning his full-plate armor with help, which takes 4 minutes (40 rounds). If he is interrupted by an attack 39 rounds later, would you rule that he has zero armor bonus from the armor, zero armor check penalty, no max dex bonus, and can fully utilize all of his monk abilities? But somehow six seconds later he would have transformed from fully un-armored to fully armored?

I would hope that the answer would clearly be no, because the parts of armor -- even short of the full suit -- surely still exist inasmuch as they have mass and occupy space. But if parts of armor are not treated as even being armor unless they are specifically listed on the armor chart with AC Bonus, Max Dex Bonus, Armor Check Penalty, etc., stats, then the leggings, backplate, helmet, pauldrons, etc., would be considered to have zero impact.

And further along those lines, what if he started with the breastplate piece first? There is no listing for armor values for the breastplate part of full-plate armor, so would it be considered armor?

The fundamental point is that deeming things as armor or not based upon whether they have a stat listing on the armor chart does not make any sense to me. All armor pieces are armor; the chart is simply a reference for gauging the combat effects in terms of game mechanics. The padding layer of full plate is indeed armor, and would function similarly to padded armor. Similarly the breastplate piece of full plate armor would function similarly to a breastplate. Samurai kikou armor -- though lacking any armor stats on the armor and shields table -- would be treated as armor and function as armor. Why? Because it is armor. Would you really consider the fact that K-Mart sells a plastic samurai halloween costume justification for classifying kikou as "not armor"?

Gloves made out of metal (not foil-lined cloth or leather, but metal) are armor and are called "gauntlets." If you know any armorsmiths you can ask them, and they will tell you without equivocation that a glove made of metal is armor.

I assume it to be assumed the opponent isn't cooperating (those villains can be so cross), with nothing else to go on it seems you would need the tumble DC + 5, like stated to avoid an attack of oppurtunity.

So you think you can only use the tumbling if you are attempting to avoid the Attack of Opportunity?

"Tumbling: A trained character can attempt to use

Acrobatics to move through a square occupied by an
opponent (see the Acrobatics skill)."

D'oh! Looked right past that one. So would it be just a straight acrobatics check if you aren't trying to avoid the attack of opportunity?

while not specifically stated it seems you can not get through an opponents square without a succesful tumble check.

Well, there is always the overrun maneuver. I was just wondering if there was a way to manage it through acrobatics (which it seems there is) and what the DC and/or penalty would be if you're not trying to avoid the attack of opportunity. Or you could reasonably conclude that the rules are such that if you are not trying to avoid the AoO, then you aren't actually tumbling at all and it is simply an overrun attempt.

If I were DM'ing, and a player wanted to tumble through an opponent's square without trying to avoid the AoO, I'd probably give it a straight acrobatics check at about DC 15 ONLY if the opponent did not try to stop them (aside from the AoO). If he does try to stop them, then I guess I'd figure it as an overrun attempt, and either give them a bonus to their CMB for the tumble, or maybe substitute their acrobatics bonus for their CMB for the attempt.

My concern is that if I allow it, he then later will enchant them

I looked back through this thread and realized that a significant amount of the debate involved the issue of monks potentially enchanting gauntlets for various purposes. However,

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

To me, enchanting magic items (according to the crafting magic items rules) would clearly fall within, "spells and effects that enhance or improve," manufactured weapons. Thus, it always seemed to me that monks could have their unarmed strikes enchanted just like any other weapon. Is there some other ruling or provision that would seem to suggest otherwise? Is that why considering gauntlets armor (or not) is such a big deal to people?